PTI
Thursday, February 4, 2010 19:28 IST
Mumbai: Slain RTI activist Satish Shetty's brother
Sandip Shetty today said that he wanted to intervene
in the PIL being heard by the Bombay High Court in
connection with his murder.
Satish, a Talegaon-based Right To Information (RTI)
activist and an anti-corruption crusader, who had
unearthed several land-related scams in the area,
was murdered last month by unidentified assailants
while on a morning walk.
The high court took suo motu (own its own) notice of
the incident, and initiated a PIL. Sandip, Satish's
younger brother, was today present in the court.
His lawyer said that he wanted to intervene in the PIL,
as he had a lot of documents pertaining to Satish's RTI queries.
"He has no confidence in the police," Sandip's lawyer said.
The division bench of Justices F I Rebello and JH Bhatia
said that it would allow him to become a party.
The state government today informed the court that out of
six persons who are suspected to be involved in Satish's murder,
five have been arrested so far, and police have sought magistrate's
permission to subject them to lie detector test.
Senior advocate D Madon, appointed as amicus curie to assist the court,
said that countries such as Mexico and Columbia have special systems
for providing protection to activists, and authorities are studying them.
Adjourning the hearing for one week, the high court sought a reply
from the government about progress in Shetty murder case, and about
the proposed steps for protecting social activists.
The court also sought a reply from Mumbai police commissioner
about investigation into six cases of threats or assaults on
local social activists.
Mitra, an umbrella organisation of NGOs which
has intervened in this PIL, had submitted list of
these cases to the police commissioner.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
SC notice to registrar generals of high courts on RTI issue
Monday, February 8, 2010 17:05 IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought response from
Registrar Generals of all high courts on the issue of
providing information on appointment and transfer of
judges under the Right to Information Act.
"We need to have views of the Registrar Generals (RGs)
of High Courts as they have been getting applications
on the issue," a bench comprising justiceB Sudershan Reddy
and justice SS Nijjar said while issuing notices to all the RGs.
The court was hearing the appeal filed by the Supreme Court
Registry challenging the directions passed against it by the
Central Information Commission (CIC) to disclose information
on judges appointment to the apex court by superseding seniors.
The apex court had also put on hold the operation of the CIC
order directing it to divulge communication between
chief justice of India KG Balakrishnan and justice R Raghupathy
of Madras high court on alleged interference by a Union minister
in a sub-judice matter.
The court has already issued notice to the RTI applicant on whose
plea the CIC has passed the orders.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the RTI applicant,
had assailed the decision of the apex court for directly
moving before itself by sidelining the Delhi high court and
said the Supreme Court, which favoured the transparency law
for others, is stepping back when it comes to itself sending
a wrong impression.
Attorney general GE Vahanvati had sought stay on the CIC's
direction saying several important questions of law arise in
the matter which required urgent hearing. Bhushan had said
all major issues relating to the case was decided by the apex
court in another matter.
The CIC, in a series of orders, has held that office of the
CJI comes within the purview of the RTI Act and information
held by the CJI should be revealed. However, Balakrishnan has
consistently been maintaining that his office does not come
under the ambit of the Act.
The Supreme Court had on December 1 moved before itself a
petition challenging the order of CIC which had directed it
to divulge information relating to appointment of judges to
the apex court and communication between CJI and justice Raghupathy.
The registry has assailed the CIC's order contending that the material
(information) held by the CJI was kept under fiduciary relationship and
should be exempted from being made public under Section 8(1)e of the
transparency law.
Interestingly, deviating from the normal practice which was adopted by
it in an earlier case on the assets declaration issue, the apex court
this time sidelined the Delhi high court where appeals against the CIC's
order were filed.
The same legal issue on whether CJI's office comes within the ambit of RTI or
not is pending before a full bench of the Delhi high court after a single judge
had rejected the apex court's plea that all the information with CJI cannot be
revealed under RTI.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought response from
Registrar Generals of all high courts on the issue of
providing information on appointment and transfer of
judges under the Right to Information Act.
"We need to have views of the Registrar Generals (RGs)
of High Courts as they have been getting applications
on the issue," a bench comprising justiceB Sudershan Reddy
and justice SS Nijjar said while issuing notices to all the RGs.
The court was hearing the appeal filed by the Supreme Court
Registry challenging the directions passed against it by the
Central Information Commission (CIC) to disclose information
on judges appointment to the apex court by superseding seniors.
The apex court had also put on hold the operation of the CIC
order directing it to divulge communication between
chief justice of India KG Balakrishnan and justice R Raghupathy
of Madras high court on alleged interference by a Union minister
in a sub-judice matter.
The court has already issued notice to the RTI applicant on whose
plea the CIC has passed the orders.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the RTI applicant,
had assailed the decision of the apex court for directly
moving before itself by sidelining the Delhi high court and
said the Supreme Court, which favoured the transparency law
for others, is stepping back when it comes to itself sending
a wrong impression.
Attorney general GE Vahanvati had sought stay on the CIC's
direction saying several important questions of law arise in
the matter which required urgent hearing. Bhushan had said
all major issues relating to the case was decided by the apex
court in another matter.
The CIC, in a series of orders, has held that office of the
CJI comes within the purview of the RTI Act and information
held by the CJI should be revealed. However, Balakrishnan has
consistently been maintaining that his office does not come
under the ambit of the Act.
The Supreme Court had on December 1 moved before itself a
petition challenging the order of CIC which had directed it
to divulge information relating to appointment of judges to
the apex court and communication between CJI and justice Raghupathy.
The registry has assailed the CIC's order contending that the material
(information) held by the CJI was kept under fiduciary relationship and
should be exempted from being made public under Section 8(1)e of the
transparency law.
Interestingly, deviating from the normal practice which was adopted by
it in an earlier case on the assets declaration issue, the apex court
this time sidelined the Delhi high court where appeals against the CIC's
order were filed.
The same legal issue on whether CJI's office comes within the ambit of RTI or
not is pending before a full bench of the Delhi high court after a single judge
had rejected the apex court's plea that all the information with CJI cannot be
revealed under RTI.
Denied apex court job, Shah gets online petition for CIC
| 2010-02-13 14:40:00 | |||
| |||
I Am Hurt at Not Being Elevated to SC: Delhi HC CJ
New Delhi | Feb 11, 2010
| Delhi High Court Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, who scripted landmark judgements like legalising gay sex and bringing CJI's office within the ambit of RTI Act, today said he was "hurt" at being bypassed for elevation to the Supreme Court. "I cannot pretend that I am not hurt. A sense of hurt is always there. These things happen in life," Justice Shah lamented during an interaction with reporters on his last working day. Justice Shah, who has been described as the most deserving judge for the Supreme Court by some of the top jurists, said it is for the people to decide why he was not elevated. "I think it is for the people to judge why I was denied... It really hurts as a human being," Justice Shah said. The Supreme Court collegium had bypassed Justice Shah, one of the senior-most High Court Chief Justices, for elevation while recommending to the Centre names of other judges who were junior to him in October 2008. The government, however, refused to accept collegium's decision and returned the file. But it had to finally accept the recommendation after the collegium refused to give in. Justice Shah, who took over as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court on May 11, 2008, will be retiring on Saturday after a tenure of around 21 months. Justice Shah, who had given a path-breaking verdict by legalising gay sex, said he was a bit apprehensive of the people's reaction to the verdict. "On that day, I did not switch on my TV till 8:30 pm as I was not sure about the kind of reaction the judgement would provoke," Justice Shah said adding even he had earlier thought that gay sex cannot be legalised in the country. "While attending a workshop in Mumbai, I met some gay activists and I had said at that time that it was difficult for the court in India to strike down criminal provision on gay sex. But ultimately the case would come to my way and I would decide the matter," Justice Shah said. The most controversial judgement pronounced by Justice Shah was pertaining to whether CJI's office comes within the ambit of RTI Act and he decided against the consistent stand taken by Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishanan. The Judge said the CJI's office comes within the purview of transparency law and the higher judiciary should not shy away from public scruitny. He had also directed the Delhi government to appoint special educators for students suffering from various disabilitie and also ordered three percent reservation for the disabled in jobs in PSUs. Justice Shah expressed unhappiness over PILs being misused for publicity. "PILs are vastly misused. The purpose was to protect the interest of general public and the right of poor (which) was neglected...These are all perversions of PILs. We must address the problems of the weakest section of the society ," he said. With regard to corruption in the judiciary, Justice Shah said that there is corruption but it is minimal at higher level. "I will not tell you the truth if I say no corruption is not there in the judiciary. It is a reality, corruption does exist, but minimal corruption is there in higher judiciary," he said. Over the media guidelines while covering sensitive cases in the court, he said the court has nothing to do with this, adding, "There has to be some self-regulating mechanism for media." It was an emotional day not only for Justice Shah but also for the staff and lawyers as they bid adieu to him. Justice Shah remained busy meeting with the court staff, media, the lawyers from High Court bar since he entered the court premises at 10 am. He brought several reforms in the High Court, including setting up the first Arbitration Centre in India and launching two e-courts. |
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-
DETAILS UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT - 2005
GENERAL INFORMATION
Officials | Designation | Tel. No. |
| Shri B. V. Sharma | Appellate Authority | 23760107 |
| Shri H. D. Nautiyal | Public Information Officer | 23358074 |
| Shri H. C. Joshi | Assistant Public Information Officer | 23712459 |
Working Hours
9.00 a.m. to 05.30 p.m. each working day
Holidays
All Central Government Holidays.
Time Frame
National Commission based information will be supplied within 1-30 days.
Fees
Application Fee
Photocopy
Inspection of record
Diskette or Floppy
(The Draft/Postal Order towards the fee should be in favour of ‘The Pay & Account Officer, Ministry of Consumer Affairs’ and payable atNew Delhi)
THE PARTICULARS OF NATIONAL COMMISSION
The address of the National Commission is :
a) Postal Address
d) Phone No.
e) Fax
JURISDICTION
The National Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and shall have Jurisdiction –
(a) To entertain :-
(i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore; and
(ii) Appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and
(b) To call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
DIRECTORY OF OFFICERS
| Sl. No. | Name of Officer | Designation | Tel. No. |
| 1. | Shri B. V. Sharma | Registrar | 23760107 |
| 2. | Shri H.D. Nautiyal | Joint Registrar | 23358074 |
| 3. | Shri S. Hanumantha Rao | Deputy Registrar | 23712459 |
| 4. | Shri H. C. Joshi | Assistant Registrar | 23712459 |
| 5. | Shri R. Natarajan | Assistant Registrar | 23712459 |
| 6. | Smt. Veena Sethi | Assistant Registrar | 23712459 |
| 7. | Shri Iqbal Ahmed | Section Officer | 23712459 |
| 8. | Shri S. Viswanathan | Section Officer | 23712459 |
| 9. | Shri Rajesh Nath Tiwari | Section Officer | 23712459 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
